A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Comparison of Ultrasound-Guided Axillary Brachial Plexus Blocks Using 2 Versus 4 Injections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind study, we compared the effectiveness and time efficiency of perioperative axillary blocks performed via 2 different techniques, 1 involving 2 and the other 4 separate skin punctures. METHODS: One hundred twenty patients undergoing upper limb surgery were randomized to receive either (1) an axillary brachial plexus block involving 2 injections, with 30 mL local anesthetic injected posterior to the axillary artery (with redirection, as needed, to achieve circumferential spread), plus 10 mL local anesthetic to the musculocutaneous nerve, guided by ultrasound (group 1, n = 56); or (2) 4 separate 10-mL injections to the median, ulnar, radial, and musculocutaneous nerves, using a combined ultrasound and neurostimulation technique (group 2, n = 58). All patients received 40 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine with 1:400,000 epinephrine. The primary outcome was the success rate of the block, defined as anesthesia adequate for surgery. Secondary outcomes were the time to administer the block, time to the onset of motor-sensory block, time to surgical readiness, and incidence of adverse events. RESULTS: The 2-injection technique was slightly faster to administer (8 vs 11 minutes, P = 0.003). The mean nerve block score was slightly higher for the 4-injection group at the 10-, 15-, 20-, and 30-minute time points, but the cumulative percentages of blocks having taken effect were not significantly different over these time points, at 0.0%, 5.4%, 12.5%, and 37.5% among those who had received a 2-injection block versus 6.9%, 10.4%, 19.0%, and 48.3%, respectively, with the 4-injection block (P = 0.20). There was no difference in the percentage of patients with complete block by 30 minutes (32.1% vs 37.5%, P = 0.55) or in final block success rates (89.3% vs 87.9%, P = 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: An ultrasound-guided 2-injection axillary block may be as effective as, and more time efficient than, a 4-injection technique.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".